1. How can you say climate change is happening when our weather records only go back 50 years?
A number of scientific tools exist for plotting climate conditions backward into time far beyond weather records that exist at best only for the last century. We can also employ analysis of glacial advance and recession to tell us what climates were like in the past. We can also study lake and bog sediments, examine tree rings and analyze pollen. These tools further include ocean sediment records and records left in coral reefs, loess deposits and paleosols.
If we want to go back even further we can analyze trapped air in ancient ice cores in Greenland or Antarctica. More sophisticated dating technologies such as radiocarbon and uranium series dating can also help us know what the climate was like in the past.
All of these tools have been employed individually and together in the development of the climate models we have created to project climate change impacts in the future.
2. I am a geologist and I know that climate has changed a lot over time and that this is nothing new.
That the climate has changed in past geological epochs is a given. But it is important that this fact not lead us to inaction in the context of the warming trends were are seeing today. While humans have certainly survived significant climate change episodes in the past, never before have there been so many of us. Never before have all the habitable places have been so fully occupied. Never before have our material demands been so great. Never before in human history have our natural systems been so diminished and fragmented and so many species threatened with extinction. The climate may have changed before, but there have never been so many of us and never have we been more vulnerable to its impacts.
3. What is the difference between climate change and global warming?
Climate change can be defined as any process, cyclical or otherwise, that causes the climate of the planet to warm or cool. When we are talking about global warming we are talking about trends toward higher mean annual temperatures. In talking about global warming in the context of the last century, we are talking about natural cyclical influences that are forcing warming, and about greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans that are accelerating this warming in our time.
4. Isn’t this just another environmentalist plot?
To claim that the global threat is merely an environmentalist plot is absurd. While climate change may have at one time been an issue that existed primarily on the environmentalist agenda, it is no longer just an environmental concern. It is at once an environmental issue, an economic concern, a social disruption and a political challenge of a magnitude we have never faced on such a scale.
5. If we survived climate change in the past, why is it such a big deal now?
As a society we are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. When faced with changes in climate in the past, humans moved uphill away from rising oceans or inland but always toward fresh water. Today, we can’t just get up and move like we did in the past. In the places worth living in, someone already lives where we would seek to go. If circumstances develop as projected, there will be few places we can all to move to and no wild nature to which we might return.
In this sense the global warming issue has produced a perfect storm of population pressure, economic expectation, ecosystem decline and jurisdictional atomization that could lead to serious consequences.
6. How long has science known about global warming?
Remarkably, there is a strong historical link between mountaineering and the origins of climate science. The renowned Irish physicist John Tyndall was one of the most famous mountaineers of the 19th century.
Tyndall’s mountaineering interests extended to his scientific work when he began to focus on the “wondrous factory” that is the atmosphere. He was the first to discover the heat-absorbing qualities of both carbon dioxide and water vapour.
In 1859, Tyndall also predicted that a water vapour feedback mechanism initiated by carbon dioxide could dramatically increase the mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere during Tyndall’s time was only about 290 parts per million.
It is now 2007. After nearly 150 years of extensive scientific research into all aspects of greenhouse gas impacts on climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported acceleration of climate change impacts.
Carbon dioxide concentrations are now at about 380 parts per million, up about 30% since John Tyndall first speculated on the importance of carbon dioxide to atmospheric temperature way back in 1859.
7. How do we distinguish between natural climate change trends and human impacts?
The fact is that climate modellers can only reproduce current warming trends if they include the greenhouse gas emissions created by humans. If you exclude the effect of human beings on the atmosphere, then models show there should be no warming or even a slight cooling, when in fact mean temperatures are rising significantly.
8. As CO2 is a central compound in many life processes, how can it be considered a pollutant?The history of our planetary life-support system is tied directly to the extent to which natural geological and biological processes are able to capture and store carbon dioxide. When atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere remain within levels that can be accommodated by natural systems, carbon dioxide is not considered a pollutant. When humans generate carbon dioxide in concentrations that cannot readily be absorbed by oceans or by natural systems, these emissions can be classified as pollutants.
9. What are greenhouse gases and what does each do?
The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour hydroflourocarbons, per-flourocarbons and sulfur hexaflouride. They can be distinguished by their different capacities to trap heat and by the length of time they persist in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, though it does not capture heat as well as methane, is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases and stays in the atmosphere for as long as a century. Methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide but is less profuse and lasts usually only a month in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxides are also powerful greenhouse gases but are less prolific in the atmosphere and more localized in their impacts.
10. How do CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause lingering warming in the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases trap radiation given off by the Earth and prevent it from escaping into space. A lot of this heat is stored in the oceans and is redistributed by ocean currents. It is this process that accounts for the lag in the effect greenhouse gases have on mean temperatures and why current greenhouse-gas-generated warming can be expected to last for centuries even if we were able to cut our emissions to zero immediately.
If you have noticed that September and October temperatures in the Rockies are often summer-like even though the days are shorter and nights cooler, then you have observed part of the greenhouse effect on climate in this region.
11. It appears that a lot of scientists and others still argue that climate change is not happening. Is there really consensus?
The Fourth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 2007, was the work of some 800 contributing authors, more than 400 lead authors from more than 130 countries as well as more than 2,500 expert scientific reviewers. The ipcc work represents the longest and most vigorously peer-reviewed research project in the history of science.
There is no longer any debate among practising climate science professionals that climate change is happening and that we are one of its principal causes.
12. If climate change is really happening, why are some glaciers in Alaska continuing to grow?
At present, at least, there are some 160,000 glaciers in the world. It would be hard to imagine a situation somewhere in which proximity to a large body of water like an ocean did not, especially in the case of localized warming, result in enhanced winter precipitation that resulted in glacial advance. Because of this effect, some glaciers in the Yukon and Alaska are growing, as are glaciers in a few similar circumstances elsewhere. On the whole, however, glaciers are receding globally, especially at lower and mid-latitudes.
13. Why is there so much resistance from resource extraction and energy interests?
Professional public relations and lobbying are part of how business is done in our market economy. But there is a risk of being too good at it without keeping an eye on larger realities. We have, for example, all seen how effective lobbying ensured that North American automobile manufacturers remained exempt from legislation demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles. They have been so successful with their lobby that they have been permitted to keep producing inefficient cars and trucks even though it has hurt their business and our economy to do so. Because of persistent self-interest, North American auto manufacturers lost world domination of their own markets. We cannot let climate-related issues lead to similar misdirections and missed opportunities in other economic sectors in North America.
14. What about books like Michael Crichton’s State of Fear? Shouldn’t I believe them?
Not necessarily. The sensational nature of the global warming threat is simply too attractive for science-fiction writers, novelists and futurists to ignore. Authors of novelistic thrillers are entitled to use artistic license in the creation of their plots and in their interpretation of science. While books like State of Fear hardly portray an accurate picture of contemporary climate science, they do bring the issue of global warming to the attention of a broader audience.
15. Isn’t this a problem we should rely on technology to solve?
We have been spoiled on this continent by brilliant engineering and design. We really have. Good engineering and amazing technology solves our problems by proxy. You don’t have to use less water, your tap will do it for you. You don’t have to drive less, your hybrid will reduce your fuel consumption for you. But sooner or later technology will not be enough. If we ultimately need to reduce our energy consumption by 70% to 90%, as some forecasts predict, global warming is going to demand that we change some of our basic habits.
16. Some experts are calling for a 70% to 90% reduction in energy consumption. How are we going to accomplish that without destroying our economy?
A graph of the gross national product of the United States from 1900 to 2000 shows exponential growth in the economy. A graph of total water withdrawals in the United States over the same period shows that in the first part of the century —until about the late 1970s to early 1980s —water use was in lockstep with economic growth. Population growth comes only with increased demand for water. But in the 1980s, the two curves split apart, and today , the u.s. uses much less water per capita for everything than it used in the 1980s. A new idea has emerged: that you can break the link between economic development and increased water use.
If you look at a similar graph of national energy use in the United States compared to per capita use in the state of California, you see the same trend. California has demonstrated that it can generate the same rate of economic growth while still dramatically reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. If California can do this, then Alberta can do it. If the u.s. can do it, so can Canada. But we have to set out to try. We don’t know what we are capable of until we are challenged.
17. What simple things might we do to address the climate change threat?
There are dozens of things an individual can do to reduce their personal energy consumption. Many can be accomplished with no negative impact on our quality of life. Unfortunately, downloading all responsibility for climate change adaptation onto the individual citizen will not result in the extent of reductions in greenhouse gases we need to achieve to ensure reasonable climate stability. As a society we need to think beyond energy efficiency and renewable energy and move toward concepts of sufficiency based on social and institutional reform, and personal lifestyle changes that result in much less energy use and much lower emissions of greenhouse gases. As individuals, we need therefore to press for effective public policy that will create a framework of broader industry and government participation in emissions reduction that will make individual contributions meaningful.
18. Will carbon sequestration in abandoned oil and gas wells work?
Still in its infancy, large-scale geological sequestering of carbon dioxide is being tested most rigorously in Norway. Early indications are that, despite concerns over potential threats of leakage and water contamination, carbon sequestration in abandoned oil and gas wells will work in some circumstances. It is also possible that the use of coal to generate electricity and the pumping of the captured carbon into wells to enhance production may work to decrease co2 emissions while generating increased oil production. However extensively employed, though, these adaptations should be considered temporary measures only. Our real objective should be to develop abundant, emissions-free energy sources.
19. What about seeding the ocean with iron filings to absorb co2 in large amounts?
For billions of years oceans have been absorbing carbon dioxide from the air. In what was later dubbed “the Geritol Solution,” it was proposed that adding iron to sea water — by spreading iron sulfate on the surface — would result in greater capacity for carbon dioxide uptake. The theory was that more iron would boost the appetite of green algae for carbon dioxide, which would result in a lower atmospheric concentration of co2. Unfortunately, algae exposed to more iron in this way gave off as much extra carbon dioxide as the marine plants had taken in. And that was without adding the impacts of having to transport all that iron sulfate all over the world and dumping it into our already ecologically troubled oceans.
20. What are the big industrial contributors to CO2 generation?
According to Corporate Knights magazine, the biggest industrial contributors to carbon dioxide emissions in Canada were electrical generation stations and oil and gas production, transmission and distribution. In 2005, the magazine reported that the top ten emitters by company in Canada were:
. . .
Lafarge Canada Inc. was number 18 [see the answer to Question 21 below].
21. How do carbon caps different from intensity targets?
Carbon caps are limits on the amount of carbon dioxide equivalents an industry or business is permitted to emit in a given time without penalty. Intensity targets are different. They are reductions, not necessarily of actual total emissions, but of the amount of carbon dioxide or its equivalents per unit of production. Large emitters like cement plants favour intensity targets over carbon caps because these targets allow them to continue producing more cement as long as the amount of co2 they emit per tonne of cement they produce decreases over time.
With appropriate incentives, careful monitoring and enforcement, intensity targets can gradually lead to reduced total emissions. Most often, however, such reductions are only achieved through emissions credits trading or mandatory ancillary activities that increase carbon sequestration in other ways.
The cement plant in the foothills of the Rockies at Exshaw, Alberta, for example, wants to expand its operations. Even though the net result will increase carbon dioxide emissions by47% or about half a million tonnes a year , the plant operators promise to achieve higher intensity targets, i.e., they will generate less carbon dioxide per tonne of product. Ideally, this wouldn’t be permitted unless the operator makes up for the increase in emissions, and any earlier failures to reduce emissions, through other activities that compensate for the emissions produced in cement production.
22. What is the point of doing anything when the really big emitters like China and the u.s. aren’t doing anything?
First of all, we stand to be accused of hypocrisy if we preach restraint to poorer countries without demonstrating that we are cutting our own emissions. If you ask the Chinese why they are not cutting emissions, their answer would be that they are struggling to generate the economic wealth that will one day allow them to afford to put the same kinds of environmental standards in place that presently exist in many parts of the developed world. They will point out that we too allowed deterioration of both air and water quality while we were developing the technology and wealth to be able to restore better conditions later.
It is a bit of a devil’s bargain. The fear is that if historical patterns hold true, then in much of the developing world the more rapid economic growth stimulated by globalization will make pollution worse for quite some time before more growth begins to foster improvement.
The United States is a different story. Their current federal government is opposed to any measures that will slow economic growth. That, however, does not mean that many Americans are not worried about the global warming threat. In the absence of federal leadership, cities and states across the u.s. are developing their own climate-change adaptation and mitigation programs. This is also happening in Canada.
23. Kyoto has been a complete failure. Why worry about something we can’t do anything about?
Our atmosphere is a global common pool resource. The only way we can deal with global warming is through international cooperation. By 2004, 126 of the 136 countries that were party to the crafting of the Kyoto Protocol had formally accepted the final agreement, including, as was required, countries accounting for 55% of industrial countries’ emissions of six designated gases. The treaty went into effect in February of 2005. In principal, the Kyoto Protocol required that 38 industrialized countries reduce their co2 emissions by at least 1.8% by 2012.
While there were doubts expressed about whether the signatories would actually meet this target —and continuing debate about whether or not the Kyoto agreement constituted the right approach to the problem — the broader point remains that the great majority of nations around the world recognized that a problem exists and began a cooperative effort to address it. So in that sense Kyoto was not a failure.
Our failure has been that we have had neither the wisdom nor the foresight to replace the Kyoto Accord with something more effective.
24. I don’t see any impacts where I live, so why should I worry?
If you live in the mountain West and you are not seeing climate change impacts, you are not looking. Spring is coming earlier each year, and winter snows, on average, are coming later. Glaciers are receding rapidly and conditions on high-altitude mountaineering routes are changing so quickly that climbing guides cannot keep up with the changes. The timing of rain and snowfall is changing, with more precipitation falling as rain in winter and longer dry periods with low river flows during late summer. Winter and nighttime temperatures are much milder.
Forest fires are occurring more frequently and with greater intensity. Treeline is rising and invasive species are becoming more abundant. Pest infestations such as the pine bark beetle are increasing in intensity and geographical distribution. Some mountain ecosystems have begun to disassemble and reassemble in unpredictable ways. Species such as the mountain caribou are threatened with extinction.
Climate-related changes in the ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains are profound, and many people who know and love these mountains are deeply concerned.
25. The big impacts are not expected until later in the century. I’ll be dead by then. Why should I worry?
Don’t count on missing the show. Climate impacts are accelerating at rates that far exceed almost all initial projections. We won’t have to wait for the next generation for the opening act. Why should we worry? We should worry because our children and their children are going to inherent the consequences of our actions. To fail to respect our obligation to future generations would be a morally unacceptable act.
This is an issue in which an individual can make a real difference in terms of the outcome. If you are concerned about climate change, do what you can to reduce the amount of energy and water you use. By exemplifying appropriate habits and attitudes, you can influence the direction our society will take with respect to what is happening, what it means and how we should react to the climate change and global warming problem. What an individual does matters.